The Slimming Pool Weight Loss Blog: Hey, I was Eating That!

 Wednesday, June 21, 2006

Posted by OneMoreBite-Weightloss on Wednesday, June 21, 2006

think again idiot... when people say muscle weighs more than fat it is implied that the same volume is being considered for each.... or perhaps at the molecular level

By  Anonymous at 9:32 PM, November 04, 2007  

That's the point. It's a misunderstanding on terms and frankly it's beginning to bore me. One pound of anything weighs the same as one pound of anything else.

Yes muscle is more dense, so one cubic inch of muscle would weigh more than one cubic inch of fat, but that is not what one is saying by the words, "muscle weighs more than fat."

I "get" that people say it incorrectly, and maybe even know what they mean but that doesn't make saying it incorrectly suddenly correct. Why not become part of the solution instead of adding to the problem?

Math isn't the world's strong suit.

By  OneMoreBite-Weightloss at 6:39 AM, November 05, 2007  

You're being idiotic. There's just no other way to put it.

The email is NOT saying 'Which weighs more, a pound of fat or a pound of muscle?' it's saying 'Which weighs more, a cubic foot of fat or a cubic foot of muscle?' Only instead of being an obnoxiously literal moron, they're saying it in plain English which is (largely) comprehensible to the rest of humanity.

Please stop treating this like a clever wordplay trick. It's stupid, and highly annoying, and it only makes you look worse.

By  Anonymous at 6:19 PM, November 20, 2007  

NO ONE IS SAYING A POUND DOESN"T EQUAL A POUND!!!! Ugh, the first posting is what I am saying too. If you are comparing 2 materials for weight wouldn't you assume you would be talking about the same volume? Otherwise you could simply say quite literally air does NOT weigh more than water....it simply takes up more space. A pound of air weighs the same as a pound of water. well duh! You couldn't compare weight of ANYTHING if you didn't assume that 2 things were the same volume. Otherwise you just add more volume of either one to outweigh the other!

By  Anonymous at 9:23 PM, November 20, 2007  

First, I doubt people are saying that a pound of muscle weighs more than a pound of fat. You are making that part up to fit in with your elementary school story. When people say one thing weighs more than the other in this context, they are implying equal volume. What you're doing is simply playing a game of semantics and with your logic you could claim that air weighs the same as lead. You would just need a whole lot more air.

Which weighs more, a hydrogen atom or an atom of uranium? Look at the atomic weights on the periodic table of elements if you're not sure, and you don't have to specify "by volume" to understand what that means. Yes, you can get a huge volume of hydrogen atoms equal in weight to a much smaller volume of uranium atoms and then claim they actually weigh the same, but again you'd be playing your semantics card and increasing how silly you sound. To keep it simple, the atoms that make up muscle are heavier in atomic weight than the atoms that make up fat.

Perhaps chemistry isn't your strong suit.

By  Anonymous at 11:12 AM, November 22, 2007  

And since my prior post likely won't be approved. Here's a quote from The President's council on ... Fitness (not that I necessarily trust that)...
"..., since muscle weighs more than fat.". http://www.fitness.gov/exerciseweight.htm

There is an obvious silent "by volume", not a silent "by lbs". Adding either is technically incorrect. Understanding intent is... priceless.

By  Anonymous at 12:55 AM, November 24, 2007  

Petty insults don't make you look smart.

By  OneMoreBite-Weightloss at 1:50 PM, November 26, 2007  

As an impartial body who stumbled across this post doing research for a weight control paper. The simple fact is that muscle does weigh more than fat if your compare equal volumes. This is in fact due to their respective densities.
Lets set the standard at one cc.
Fat Density = 0.918 gm/cc
Muscle Density = 1.049gm/cc

D=M/V
Since V=1
Mass of Fat = 0.918gm
Mass of Muscle = 1.049gm

Weight = Mass x Gravity
Gravity is constant for both equations. Therefore the one with more mass will have more weight.

Muscle clearly has more mass and therefore weighs more.

The common misconception that people don't take equal volumes.
If you have a box of fat, and an equal size box of muscle the box of muscle will be heavier.
If you take a 20 pound box of muscle and a 20 pound box of fat they will weigh the same. The boxes will undoubtedly be different sizes however.

I apologize for the length of this post.

-Scott
Johns Hopkins University
Department of Behavioral Biology

By  Scott at 5:31 PM, December 02, 2007  

Yes, muscle does weigh more than fat. It is not other people using the wrong terminology, it is you who is unnecessarily complicating a simple statement.

As one of the previous posters said, when you say one substance weighs more than another, you are assuming it is the same volume. Gold weighs more than aluminum, steel weighs far more than styrofoam. You wouldn't say steel and steel and styrofoam weigh the same, just because one pound of styrofoam weighs the same as one pound of steel.

By  AC at 3:52 PM, December 06, 2007  

I should have said "volume" rather than density, since that's the common phrasing. Muscle weighs more than fat by volume.

By  OneMoreBite-Weightloss at 4:43 PM, December 12, 2007  

political correctness at it's best. i would hope you always speak with this correctness or you would contradict what you believe to be true. if you have the same portion of muscle and fat, the muscle will weigh more. don't make this more complicated than it is.

By  Dan E at 4:30 PM, January 10, 2008  

Just leave it as muscle weighs more than fat... Anyone who stops to think knows it is "by volume" rather than "by lbs". If it wasn't, nothing would weigh more than anything, ie. a person wouldn't weigh more... they'd just have more volume. In that scenario you might as well delete "weight" from the English language.

By  Anonymous at 12:47 AM, January 13, 2008  

I will make this simple for everyone smart or not:
________ ____________
( ) ( )
( ) ( )
( muscle ) vs ( fat )
( ) ( )
(________) ( )
(____________)

Both have been weighed out to the same weight but there is more fat because it has a lower density than muscle. Showing that muscle weighs more.


__________ __________
( ) ( )
( ) ( )
( ) vs ( )
( ) ( )
(__________) (__________)

The muscle will weigh more than the fat because they are the smae volume and muscle has a higher density. Showing that fat weighs less.

DID EVERYONE GET THAT?

By  smartie at 1:10 PM, January 13, 2008  

1 cubic foot of muscle is heavier than 1 cubic foot of fat.

Thus, muscle is heavier than fat, when we're talking about the same volume. But, of course, a pound of muscle weighs the same as a pound of fat.

But it's smaller.

Fat people weigh more than non fat people who can bench the same. Unless said weakling has huge bones.

This is also a stupid conversation. Why am I partaking?

By  Anonymous at 1:15 PM, February 27, 2008  

When comparing the wieghts of an object the volume HAS to be constant. If it wasn't, we could argue that everything on earth weighs the same amount.

Answer this. Does iron weigh more than cotton? Don't overthink it, just answer the question. The answer is yes, it weighs more than cotton. If volume were not critical to the equation one could argue that cotton can be heavier by comparing al the cotton that would fill a room to a piece of iron that could sit on my fingernail.

Sooooooooooooooo, yes, muscle weighs more than fat. Every other discussion is one of semantics and meaningless. A guy with a 34" waist could weigh 160 lbs or he could weigh 220 lbs. Its going to depend upon his body composition since MUSCLE WEIGHS MORE THAN FAT!

By  Anonymous at 12:28 PM, May 28, 2008  

Post a Comment

<< Home